Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Pew survey on US public opinion on airstrikes on Syria

by Salman Hameed

As the Obama administration marches towards the inevitable bombing of Syria, it seems that almost half of all Americans oppose this action (see the Pew results here). Now, in theory, a moral argument can always trump public opinion. But in this particular case, it is the preservation of US "credibility" that seems to be driving the push for bombing. In an alternative universe that would play as a black comedy, but here the consequences may include the worsening of humanitarian crisis and a further escalation of sectarian tensions. It is not that Assad is exactly a mushy and nice fellow. But we have to understand the consequences of bombing for the people that we are supposedly trying to save.

Here are two excellent articles on the Syrian situation. The first one is by Hampshire College professor, Omar Dahi, and focuses on how to think about these chemical attacks: Chemical Attacks and Military Interventions:

It is hard to avoid the hopeless feeling that Syrians have lost
almost all agency over their collective future. The European Union,
Gulf, and the United States may very well increase armaments to the
rebels, the United States may launch cruise missiles into Syria, NATO
may impose a no-fly zone or invade part or all Syrian territory. But
whatever actions take place, continuing to claim them in the interests
of the Syrian people is simply an exercise in public relations and
deception.

Both the supporters of the government and the rebels continue to
frame the possible outcomes of the conflict as either a victory for the
government or the rebels—a way to avoid coming to terms with the third
possibility: that both sides have already lost. The only option left for
Syrians still interested in stopping the fall further down the abyss is
to demand a political settlement and massive aid to help heal the mass
humanitarian catastrophe inside Syria and the neighboring countries. It
would be the beginning of politics and possibilities—very bleak ones as
things stand, but nevetheless ones that do not now exist.

I recognize that you are in the midst of a civil war and that what I
propose sounds to you like surrender. You wish to fight on, with the
messianic view that eventually you will prevail over the regime of Asad.
This might be the case, but the odds are stacked against you as much as
they are stacked against the Asad regime that it will have a complete
victory. Neither of you are willing to see that the human suffering is
not worth the chances of triumph. Empire enjoys watching the two sides
battle like caged mice, weakening each other to its advantage.

Syria deserves better. But now the cord of Syrian nationalism is
wrapped around the neck of the Syrian people, asphyxiating your dreams
of sovereignty and freedom. A mediated peace alongside a process for
genuine democratization guaranteed by your neighboring states would
strengthen the chances for the renewal of your national ambitions.
Anything else will simply lead to the destruction of your country, its
history, and its future. I am not in favor of the gallows of Ba‘th, nor
the execution chambers of Jabhat al-Nusra, neither the guns of NATO nor
the neoliberal spirits of the Gulf Arab regimes. Humans have complex
minds, and even more complex ambitions. It is for us on the Left to
foster those desires, and not to fall prey to the choices of the
present. Neither this nor that, but only the future.For you, my friend, a taste of the great Pakistani leftwing poet Habib Jalib, this is the opening of Dastoor, from 1962:

And here is the main Pew Survey of American public opinion on Syrian airstrikes:

And there is opposition from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents:

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.

No comments:

What is Irtiqa?

Irtiqa is a Science and Religion blog. It tracks and comments on news relevant to the interplay of science & religion - with a focus on scientific debates taking place in the Muslim world. Irtiqa literally means evolution in Urdu. But it does not imply only biological evolution. Instead, it is an all encompassing word used for evolution of the universe, biological evolution, and also for biological/human development. While it has created confusion in debates over biological evolution in South Asia, it provides a nice integrative name for a blog that addresses issues of science & religion. For further information, contact Salman Hameed.

The blog banner is designed by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad. You can find all his creative endeavors at Orangie.

On Muslims and Evolution

Salman Hameed

Salman is an astronomer and Associate Professor of Integrated Science & Humanities at Hampshire College, Massachusetts. Currently, he is working on understanding the rise of creationism in contemporary Islamic world and how Muslims view the relationship between science & religion. He is also working with historian Tracy Leavelle at Creighton University to analyze reconciliation efforts between astronomers and Native Hawaiians over telescopes on top of sacred Mauna Kea in Hawaii. He teaches “History and Philosophy of Science & Religion” with philosopher Laura Sizer, and “Science in the Islamic World”, both at Hampshire College. Salman and Laura Sizer are also responsible for the ongoing Hampshire College Lecture Series on Science & Religion, and you can find videos of all these lectures below. Contact information here.